Is "free will" limited by omniscience?

aabdul

Are the hunger stricken people punished for something they have done, but the punishment comes in the form of something that is a result of what e.g. other nations are doing or not doing? How is it connected? Is there a specific and intended purpose for each individual in calamities, or are they just punishments for the sake of punishment?

Peace

The Quran holds society as a whole responsible for their situation. We behave strangely in a society, benefiting from the good - facilities, benefits etc. - one never refuses them on the grounds that one is not directly responsible for them. On the other hand, however, one is always complaining about the badness of society for which, again, one is not directly responsible. This attitude is referred to in the Quran ?When Man is enjoying Our bounties, he turns away (arrogantly from Allah?s law), but when evil comes to him, he raises hue and cry? (1783). It goes on to say ?Say, everyone works according to one?s tether? (1784), therefore man is directly or indirectly responsible for what happens in society. A society is nothing but a collection of individuals who have the potential of enforcing change. An individual is a part / member of a society and, as such, is affected by it anyway. For example, a good harvest benefits even those not connected with farming at all. On the other hand, a bursting dam extends its damage even to those who have nothing at all to do with its construction or maintenance. This is why the Quran say ?Try to protect your society against a danger which is not restricted to the people responsible for it? (825). Please note that the Quran does not accept as valid the excuse of being helpless from free-willed Man. It is possible, though, that individuals fail in their initial attempt(s) to bring about change in their society. But this is very different from presenting helplessness as an excuse. People who try are commended by Allah (2157), others will naturally go to hell (497). The Quran emphasizes reformation of society as a whole which will automatically affect individuals. Quran exhorts capable group (having the physical qualities as well the guidance of permanent divine values) shall take control of society to carry out divine responsibilities on behalf of Allah --- ?It is Our promise (firm law) that those of you who become convinced of Allah?s laws, and do ?saleh? deeds, shall inherit the control of the Earth ?. ? (2455).

aabdul

Third Rebuttal-

My comments in Blue

More poorly paraphrased texts, but similar questions apply.

For your satisfaction, I will quote from Pickthal; "And they say If the Beneficent One had (so) willed, we should not have worshipped them. They have no knowledge whatsoever of that. They do but guess."(4320)

So these pagans thought their religion was actually false? They believed that worshipping angels was false; why would they even bother defending their religious practices if they believed them to be false anyway? The verses does not say tha pagans thought their religion was false. The pagans only stating that it is the Will of Allah they continue to worship their dieties implying, therefore, there is nothing wrong.
"If the most Gracious had willed we would not worship them.." Does it sound like they were trying to absolve themselves of moral responsibility (as you claim)? Or that they thought that their religious practices, handed down from their fathers, were pleasing to God, and thus in conformity with his will? It is about their claim that their religous practicies being in conformity with God's will
4321 "Or have we given them a book before this, to which they are holding fast?" This verse and v.22 make your interpretation impossible. For, what is the point of asking them by what authority they practice their religion, if these pagans are only appealing to God's eternal decree? In other words, if they got their practices from revelation or from their own made up traditions, it's all completely irrelevant to the argument which you claim they're making. Verse 22 only means this. (They do not have any rational proof based on knowledge. And) We had not sent any 'book' to them, wherein were written such beliefs to which they now hold steadfastly. (Therefore the concept of ?taqdeer? is contradictory to Divine Guidance, as well as human knowledge and intellect. If they had known the facts they would not have said that all this happens due to God?s will; and that they had no choice. In reality the human being has been endowed with the ability to choose his actions. He is thus always responsible for his deeds ~ 6149; 3647)

aabdul

Peace, aabdul.

I see this, like many other things mentioned in the Qur'aan, as being open to interpretation. And, in any case, you're missing the point. According to the general Islamic view of Allah, he is all-knowing (omniscient), aware of all past and future events. The key position, of course, is knowledge of the future. If God knows all future events, then the future must be predetermined, 'written in stone'. Correct? That's where the problem with "free will" comes into play. If "free will" is the proposing and execution of a choice without any controlling or determining influence(s), then we can't really say that we have free will - because the future has already been determined for us!

From a practical perspective, we can look at things from the view of a righteous man versus a wicked man. If a righteous person gives money to poor people, then the act of him giving this money to those who need(ed) it was known by Allah before the action was actually taken. Since the future is already prewritten, then there's no way that this person could have NOT given the money to the poor - since, as mentioned, it was already predetermined. Similarly, if a wicked person steals money from others, Allah already knew that (1) this man would be wicked and (2) this man would become a thief and steal from others. Due to the future being prewritten, there's no way that this wicked man could've avoided stealing - again, because it was already predetermined for him to do so.

I'm not 'blaming God' for the actions of wicked people, nor am I crediting him with the actions of righteous people. However, we also need to look at things rationally... If Allah predetermines (or "knows&quot that righteous people will perform righteous works, is there any way for them to avoid performing these actions? And if Allah predetermines that wicked people will conduct wickedness, is there any way for them to be righteous? In other words, can they bypass God's decree (or knowledge) and do the opposite of what's been written concerning them?

Salaam brother Ahmad,

Your typing in red would not absolve yourself from the blame you make GOD responsible for our actions. Do you know, in the battle of Uhud when Muslims received a set back and they pondered upon the setback with ? How did it happen??, Allah?s reply to that was ?Tell, (them O Prophet!), that was from your own selves.? (3165). Allah is not a whimsical dictator. He rules by set laws not by arbitrary decrees. Sadly, when Muslims abandoned the Quran (at the end of the period of ?the righteous caliphate?), their concept of Allah changed to one of an emperor. Allah became an absolutely tyrannical dictator ruling the universe and humans according to His moods.

Allah does not pre-determine what cause of actions man will be talking, if that is the case there is no free will for man. Consequently Allah can not hold man responsible for his actions. However Quran states; ?Deeds bring results and responsibility to the doer (s)? (2286). ?People are destroyed by their own actions? (279). that ?Everyone is mortgaged by his own actions? (743. ?You get what you do? (982). ?Allah created the skies and the earth (the universe) rightfully to get everyone the result of his actions and to stop all wrongdoing? (4522). ?whoever does wrong shall bear the consequence? (4123) and ?Whatever on does produces results? (982; 995; 1451; 1696-97; 4017). Elsewhere, the Quran states ?everyone shall get the result of one?s actions? (3433). It is repeated in (7147; 5216; 5624; 8336) etc. Again, it states ?Allah doesn?t let go wasted any deed of a doer?.(3197). Also ?Allah never wastes the return of good doers? (1290; 3144).

Quran says ?Do whatever you wish. Surely, whatever you do (will bear a result, as it) is watched by Him? (4140). Even Allah doesn?t interfere. He just keeps a watch ?Allah sees your actions? (2237). ?He knows them? (2234). ?No action can go unnoticed by Him?. (2144), even ?Allah knows what is in your hearts? (2235). ?Allah surrounds whatever you do? (3119). It means Man should bear in mind the Law of Returns which oversees his actions. In other words, Man is free to choose his action but is not free to change the natural consequences of that action. That is why every responsible action by Man produces a reaction and every man has to bear the consequences of his actions.

The article you posted has some serious philosophical problems associated with it. For example, the Qur'aan says that Allah 'seals the hearts' of some people - it doesn't say anything about these people sealing their own hearts!

You are totally confused due to surperficial reading of certain verses thinking that there is an element of "compulsion" involved in such statements. Quran says ?Don?t they ponder over the Quran? Have their hearts locked themselves shut?? ? (4724). Please note the very important suffix - - (of them) with the word - - (locks) in this verse. It very clearly shows that men seal their own hearts, shut to calls of reason. Elsewhere, the same idea is put in other words ?When they went crooked, Allah crooked their hearts? (His law of Returns did it) ? (615; 519; 9127).

Let me quote a verse from Sura 83 which clarifies the phrase ?Allah has sealed their hearts? beyond any shadow of a doubt. It says ?No, it?s not like that! But (the reality is that) their hearts get rusted because of their own deeds! (8314).

Also verses like from chapter 7, (Conventionally translated) ?And We have created a lot of Jinns and Men for Hell". You may think this supports the concept of pre-destiny? No. The rest of the verse clears the confusion ?They possess hearts but don?t use them for thinking, they have eyes but don?t use them to look, they have ears but don?t use them to hear. They are the ones who are like animals, nay, even worse (7179).

I would suggest you to read Book of Destiny (Kitab-Ul-Taqdeer) By Parwez, which you can download from http//resurgentislam.com/ for more clarification and indepth study.

Hope the point is clear to you

Peace

Hoppean

Insha Allah I will answer your comments point by points in different posts since it requires some explanation.

You are saying if Allah is Capable to feed the hungry and even then if people are hungry it would mean Allah willed people to go hungry. THIS IS COMPLETELY A WRONG CONCEPT AND IT HAS NO BASIS AND IT IS A FABRICATION.

aabdul, I have read through all your responses, and you are mixing together alot of issues. In addition, you did not answer my questions, you only continued making unsubstantiated assertions. For simplicity, let's break down your argument by points.

The texts you have cited where heathens are saying"...had God so willed etc" do not support your position (which is the traditional islamic position) that these heathens were justifying their crimes/sins, by citing God's decree. In order to understand the text in this way, one must presuppose that these heathens acknowledge that they're doing something wrong, which would imply they do not believe their own religious practices to be true. On the other hand, as I already demonstrated, these heathens do not acknowledge their religious practices to be false inventions (that's why they cite it as handed down from their fathers); to the contrary, they believe their practices to be legitimate and therefore when they say "had God willed..." they are saying "if God were not pleased with our religion, he would not have allowed us to practice it". This is because they do not see any of God's purposes in creation, but only their own.
Another problem that you have is with the word "will"; in itself it is ambiguous, it could refer to either God's decree, or it could refer to God's pleasure. As I said your interpretation of "God's will" meaning "God's decree" is unjustifiable exegetically.

Once it has been made obvious that your first point is invalid, then the whole structure you have built on it collapses.

Allah is CAPABLE for directly feeding the poor but He would not directly interfere in the affairs of the world and feed the needy

This, like so many other statements you have made, is gratuitous; you have never bothered to establish it exegetically. You admit God is "capable" yet there is still hunger in the world; the conclusion is inevitable. If God does not "directly interfere", according to you, then it is either 1) Because he is incapable, something you deny, or 2) It is because he is unwilling. You can play with words all you like, but according to your own beliefs God has chosen/willed not to "interfere". Notice, how here you have now equivocated on the word "will"; for now what you mean is Yes God willed/decreed not to "interfere", and there is still hunger, but this is not pleasing to God, because it is the result of man's sin/crime etc. This clearly shows that you understand the distinction that I made above, regarding the word "will".

Now if you will simply admit that your presuppositions are false, and that therefore these texts you have cited are of no help to you, then we can move on to those other texts which you have recently brought forward, allegedly teaching "free will".

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Zulf.

Our world evolves as on a time line, i.e. time is linear to us and the events in our world. The past is the past, the now is the only thing that really exists, and the future hasn't yet happened. BUT, since time is just an aspect of Creation, then Allah is not bound, limited or dependent on time, because Allah is not a thing or person. Allah is something greater, independent of Creation, that we cannot fully grasp. So Allah is independent from the dimension of time and knows that which has not yet happened, because it is not a matter of past, present and future to Allah. It only appears like this to us... time. Allah is not "sitting" somewhere waiting for everything to play out. The main point is that Allah is not of this world. You can also see it like going back in a time machine as a detached observer. Things are happening for the first time, but you know it in advance because you've broken free from time. Perhaps not a great example. In any case, Allah is not illogical just because our logic cannot handle it.

I think you're still missing the point. You're alleging that Allah is potentially, somehow, in all places and times, since (according to you) he's not limited to time and space. This idea, however, isn't logical at all. Time can't be described as totally linear; if anything, time is merely the measurement and determination of change. The Qur'aan says that Allah doesn't change, meaning his positions (and statutes) are "timeless". That's one way of looking at things. Yet, if he can somehow see, and inhabit, the future, then we're STILL proposing that the future is already predetermined. Whatever God sees (or experiences) in the future is bound to happen, and there's no way that we can alter his position concerning future events. Therefore, again, if one is "destined" to become a bank robber, there's nothing the person can do to NOT become a bank robber - his future is already written in stone. That directly conflicts with the concept of "free will".

Let's look at it analytically. Allah placed a tree - according to the Bible, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - in the garden that he built for Adam and Eve. Afterwards, he restricted Adam and Eve from eating, or even touching, this tree. Did he know that they were going to eat from it anyway? According to the Islamic scope of predetermination, he absolutely did! Yet, he still placed the tree in the garden, even though he knew that they'd fall victim to it... The question is Could Adam and Eve have avoided eating from this tree? Again, according to the Islamic scope of predetermination, they couldn't have prevented it at all, since Allah already knew that it would happen. In other words, their sin against him was unavoidable. If we stretch this idea along the line of a "timeless" deity, then we'd form the conclusion that Allah deliberately created Adam and Eve to transgress his commandment; he placed an object in their midst that he knew they'd fall victim to; he created Ibliys specifically for the purpose of defying his command (e.g. to submit to Adam) and becoming the tempting agent of humanity; he placed Adam and Eve in a garden that he knew they'd be ejected from due to their disobedience; he sent prophets to lands knowing full well that they'd be rejected, persecuted, and even killed by the residents; etc.

This falls right in line with the 'problem of evil' concept. If Allah knew all of these factors beforehand, then he could've changed them. For example, he could've avoided the creation process altogether. Otherwise, he could've avoided creating a tree (and placing it in the garden) that he knew his servants would fall victim to. He could've warned Ibliys about his disobedience prior to it actually taking place. He could've told the prophets to give the people books and flee for their lives, etc... The problem? If God knew the future, he should've changed it (in the past), since the refusal to do so restricts him from being omnibenevolent, most merciful, etc. If he couldn't have changed it, then that restricts him from being omnipotent (all-powerful). If he didn't know those things would happen, then that would restrict him from being omniscient, etc.

I understand the views of "noshirk" and "aabdul"; but that doesn't make their views correct or sensible.

I don't understand your other point, concerning Allah NOT being illogical merely because 'our logic can't handle it'. What does this mean? Who determines what's logical or illogical, if not us (humanity)? If we can't identify God through a logical medium, then how is he NOT illogical? The idea of something being "logical" means it is characterized by clear, rational thinking, generally as it relates to something verifiable... Can you explain how Allah (God) can be authenticated via logic or rational thinking, especially if we can't even specifically identify what he/she/it is?

Peace,

Ahmad

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, aabdul.

I'll check out the website you recommended. Thanks for your clarification, and I'll revisit this topic after I've finished reviewing your source. Thanks again.

Peace,

Ahmad

aabdul

The texts you have cited where heathens are saying"...had God so willed etc" do not support your position (which is the traditional islamic position) that these heathens were justifying their crimes/sins, by citing God's decree. In order to understand the text in this way, one must presuppose that these heathens acknowledge that they're doing something wrong, which would imply they do not believe their own religious practices to be true. On the other hand, as I already demonstrated, these heathens do not acknowledge their religious practices to be false inventions (that's why they cite it as handed down from their fathers); to the contrary, they believe their practices to be legitimate and therefore when they say "had God willed..." they are saying "if God were not pleased with our religion, he would not have allowed us to practice it". This is because they do not see any of God's purposes in creation, but only their own.

This is the arabic of verse 6148. And the transliteration is this

Sayaqoolu allatheena ashrakoo law shaa Allahu ma ashrakna wala abaona wala harramna min shayin kathalika kaththaba allatheena min qablihim

Now the main words;

law shaa Allahu = If God had willed/ intended/ desired

Ma ashrakna wala abaona wala harramna min shayin = Neither we nor our ancestors would have committed Shirk (associating partners with Allah) or regarded anything as Har?am of our own accord.

It is clear they are justifying that they associating partners (ashrakna) with Allah is something what God had willed / intended/ desired for them to do. As for me, it is clear that they knew they are doing wrong, but they are justifying their wrong action on pre-destiny/ fate. They wanted to follow the way of their forefathers blindly. If they thought what they were doing right, I think, in that case, there is no logic in coming up with a justification of pre-destiny/ fate. Even assuming, not admitting they considered what they were doing as right, still the point I am highlighting is still valid. They claim their actions are based on pre-destiny. Allah counters them saying they are wrong and they are only following conjectures and indulging in speculations. I do not think this is a major issue to argue about and establish. We are deviating from the main discussion.

Hoppean

Let's look at it analytically. Allah placed a tree - according to the Bible, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - in the garden that he built for Adam and Eve. Afterwards, he restricted Adam and Eve from eating, or even touching, this tree. Did he know that they were going to eat from it anyway? According to the Islamic scope of predetermination, he absolutely did! Yet, he still placed the tree in the garden, even though he knew that they'd fall victim to it... The question is Could Adam and Eve have avoided eating from this tree? Again, according to the Islamic scope of predetermination, they couldn't have prevented it at all, since Allah already knew that it would happen. In other words, their sin against him was unavoidable. If we stretch this idea along the line of a "timeless" deity, then we'd form the conclusion that Allah deliberately created Adam and Eve to transgress his commandment; he placed an object in their midst that he knew they'd fall victim to; he created Ibliys specifically for the purpose of defying his command (e.g. to submit to Adam) and becoming the tempting agent of humanity; he placed Adam and Eve in a garden that he knew they'd be ejected from due to their disobedience; he sent prophets to lands knowing full well that they'd be rejected, persecuted, and even killed by the residents; etc.

I agree with everything you've written, yet I am not scandalized by it.

This falls right in line with the 'problem of evil' concept. If Allah knew all of these factors beforehand, then he could've changed them. For example, he could've avoided the creation process altogether. Otherwise, he could've avoided creating a tree (and placing it in the garden) that he knew his servants would fall victim to. He could've warned Ibliys about his disobedience prior to it actually taking place. He could've told the prophets to give the people books and flee for their lives, etc... The problem? If God knew the future, he should've changed it (in the past), since the refusal to do so restricts him from being omnibenevolent, most merciful, etc. If he couldn't have changed it, then that restricts him from being omnipotent (all-powerful). If he didn't know those things would happen, then that would restrict him from being omniscient, etc.

You have failed to provide a definition of "omnibenevolence" or "mercy" etc, which would result in any "problem of evil".
The attribute of mercy has relevance only to an object; it presupposes creation and has no relevance to God ad intra. Thus, whatever your definition of "mercy etc" may be, it cannot result in God contradicting himself ontologically.
Categories such as mercy or justice have no relevance to God, qua creator. Therefore your objection falls away, as God, qua creator, "...does whatever he wills with the armies of heaven and earth, and none can stay his hand and all the inhabitants of the earth are esteemed as nothing." It would be like going up to an artist and saying your work is "unmerciful" or "unjust", such categories are irrelevant.

aabdul

Peace, aabdul.

I'll check out the website you recommended. Thanks for your clarification, and I'll revisit this topic after I've finished reviewing your source. Thanks again.

Peace,

Ahmad

Thank you. I sincerely pray to Allah to show us the right understanding. Here is another link for you if you want to read online.

http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/KT.htm

Hoppean

Everyone can read the verse on their own, in its context.

It is clear they are justifying that they associating partners (ashrakna) with Allah is something what God had willed / intended/ desired for them to do.

You commit the fallacy of Anachronism "Shirk" as an Islamic theological concept would have meant nothing to these people. They would not have considered this "shirk" a sin/crime in anyway.
You implicitly admit that these heathens believed their religious practices to be false, even though you denied it previously.

As for me, it is clear that they knew they are doing wrong, but they are justifying their wrong action on pre-destiny/ fate.

That's exactly the presupposition which you previously denied, which you are now admitting! Namely, that these heathens do not believe in the very religious practices which they are "justifying". If they know they're doing wrong, then they don't believe that God has commanded them to do these things, therefore they don't believe their religious practices are true. All this is indefensible exegetically.

They wanted to follow the way of their forefathers blindly.

You just said that they were trying to "justify their wrong actions". If this is true, then they are not following "their forefathers blindly"; they knew and understood that their fathers were all in error. All of which makes their appeal to "being on their fathers' footsteps" completely absurd.

If they thought what they were doing right, I think, in that case, there is no logic in coming up with a justification of pre-destiny/ fate.

This is called circular reasoning. You're asserting the very conclusion, you're supposed to be proving.

Even assuming, not admitting they considered what they were doing as right, still the point I am highlighting is still valid.

No it is not! If you assume/admit this point, then your whole argument collapses. As your whole misinterpretation of these verses is 100% based on the false assumption that these heathens do not even believe their own religion/practices to be true!

They claim their actions are based on pre-destiny.

No they claim their actions to be in accordance with "God's will". There is no mention of "pre destiny" in any of these texts, as I keep telling you You have read this INTO the text, you have not taken it OUT of the text.
As you yourself admit "shaa" means to "will/intend/desire/wish"; therefore the question is What is meant by "God's will", his decree or his pleasure?

Allah counters them saying they are wrong and they are only following conjectures and indulging in speculations.

This is with respect to their practices, such as worshipping angels or prohibiting various animals for consumption.

I do not think this is a major issue to argue about and establish. We are deviating from the main discussion.

Huh?? How can the very foundation of your argument not be "a major issue"?? As I have said, once you take away this false assumption, that these heathens did not truly believe in their own religion/practices, then your whole argument collapses.

I don't think you understand the implications of the arguments you have put forth. Once your assumption, that these heathens believed their religion was false, is denied, then these verses are of no help to you, whatsoever. Your whole argument, from these verses, is based on this false premise, which cannot be defended exegetically.

For if you admit that these heathens really did believe in their religion, then "had God willed etc" would not refer to his eternal decree, but to his good pleasure. As in, "if God were not pleased with our religion, we would not be practicing it, for he would destroy us etc".

One last thing, you did not address my point #3 in my previous post. I assume you are conceding the fact that on your own view, God does not will to satiate all hunger either, and that you would also be using the term "will" ambiguously?

StopS

He would not directly interfere in the affairs of the world

Interesting point. Are you saying that humans are totally self reliant? Prayers for loved ones who are ill, injured or missing in catastrophes are futile?

aabdul

This, like so many other statements you have made, is gratuitous; you have never bothered to establish it exegetically. You admit God is "capable" yet there is still hunger in the world; the conclusion is inevitable. If God does not "directly interfere", according to you, then it is either 1) Because he is incapable, something you deny, or 2) It is because he is unwilling. You can play with words all you like, but according to your own beliefs God has chosen/willed not to "interfere". Notice, how here you have now equivocated on the word "will"; for now what you mean is Yes God willed/decreed not to "interfere", and there is still hunger, but this is not pleasing to God, because it is the result of man's sin/crime etc. This clearly shows that you understand the distinction that I made above, regarding the word "will".

Now if you will simply admit that your presuppositions are false, and that therefore these texts you have cited are of no help to you, then we can move on to those other texts which you have recently brought forward, allegedly teaching "free will".

Well, I will address here your accusation that I have never bothered to establish it exegetically and also your comment "If God does not "directly interfere" then it is either 1) Because He is incapable, or 2) It is because he is unwilling"

Firstly let me ask as an hypothetical question. We know salt has salty taste. It has salty taste because God wanted it so and made it so. If He had formulated salt to be with a sweet taste, it would have been sweet. Now my question, can Allah change the taste of salt from salty to sweet? The answer to that is Yes, He can but He won?t, because He has pledged NOT to make changes in laws He has established according to His will. This point is needed to be explained a bit detail to understnd what actually I am talking about. I will try my level best to be short.

Quran refers to as the two worlds of Allah - Amr and Khalq. These are two distinct domains in which God?s Will operates. These are

i. the domain of "Amr"
ii. the domain of "Khalq" which can be further divided into
a. the world of nature
b. the world of human beings.

Khalq is the created universe while Amr is whatever is beyond (754). The domain of ?Amr? is exclusive to Allah and is Allah?s alone. No human being can understand it let alone have a share in it because it is beyond space and time. This is the domain where He creates out of nothingness and establishes laws for the existence, growth and development of things. At this stage He exercises His absolute, limitless discretion ? ?He creates whatever He wishes ?? (4249); ?He does whatever He intends - (2414); ?No one can question Him over what He does ?? (2123), (51), 2253). The domain of Amr is related to His determination to create from nothingness and His actions thereof run contrary to natural laws like cause and effect, creation within the universe, procreation, etc.

However the domain of ?Khalq? is the created universe. It can be divided into (a) the world of nature (b) the world of human being. Allah?s decisions about the universe are unchangeable. The permanence of laws of Nature provides the foundation for the sciences. These laws are completely preordainedby Allah (via His Divine Will (decision in the domain of Amr) and are, therefore, unalterable. This is a world in which freedom has no meaning. Be they planets or electrons, they must move in their prescribed orbits. Be they apples, or rain drops, they must fall to the ground. Fire must burn and ice must cool, and so on. Therefore, no human has the authority to change these laws and God does not change any of these natural laws for anyone (1064, 3030). Human beings can only discover the natural laws and make use of them.

"And He has constrained the night and the day and the sun and the moon to be of service unto you, and the stars are made subservient to His command." (1612)

To explain to point futher, the Quran has used two terms; Allah?s Word < Kalimatullah ( &#1607 and Allah?s Way <SunnatAllah ( both of these expressions in the Quran have been used to mean Allah?s law. ?Kalima? is the formula (theory) while ?SunnatAllah? is the practical form the ?Kalimatullah? takes. Both of these are permanent (634, 6116, 1827 and also 1064) for ?Kalimatullah? and (3362, 4085, 4823) for ?SunnatAllah?. Not only are these laws permanent but they don?t even change course (1777, 3543)! It has been mentioned above that Allah?s ?Amr (will) becomes ( &#1575 ?set standards & measures? in the created universe. This is referred to as ?SunnatAllah? in (333, i.e., it becomes unchangeable law.

As far as human beings are concerned, we God does not directly control their lives. In other words, God does not choose for us ? we have to make our own choice. God has given us the freedom of choice and He wants us to exercise this choice based on reason in the light of His revelation.

According to Allama Iqbal

"God Himself cannot feel, judge and choose for me when more than one course of action are open to me. He has , by permitting the emergence of a finite ego capable of private initiative, limited the freedom of His own free will." (Reconstruction, page 80)

"Thus the element of guidance and directive control in the ego?s activity clearly shows that the ego is a free personal causality. He shares in the life and freedom of the Ultimate Ego who, by permitting the emergence of a finite ego, capable of private initiative, has limited his own freedom of His own free will. This freedom of conscious behaviour follows from the view of ego-activity which the Qur?an takes." (ibid, pages 86-87)

"No doubt, the emergence of egos endowed with power of spontaneous and hence unforeseeable action is, in a sense, a limitation on the freedom of the all-inclusive Ego. But this limitation is not externally imposed. It is born out of his own creative freedom whereby He has chosen finite egos to be participators of His life, power, and freedom." (ibid, pages 63-64)

In all the three quotations above, Allama Iqbal mentions that God has limited His freedom by His own choice. It may sound strange to some people that God?s freedom can be limited. But there is nothing strange about it as Allah Himself says in the Qur?an

"Allah has made obligatory on Himself the Rahmah" (612, 654)

Although a human being is free to choose the course of action he/she prefers, the freedom ends once the choice is made. Results are based on the course chosen; one cannot make one choice and bring about the result of another choice. This is the law of requital and it works inexorably in the entire universe, including the world of man. In the latter case, the result may come out in present life or in the Hereafter.

This may give raise to an argument that a law abiding Allah? ceases to be the ?all-powerful Allah?. But this is misleading. One does not cease to have power if one submits to a law voluntarily. For instance, if you are made to, against your will, have a daily 3- mile early morning walk, you are forced. But if you decide to do it, on your own accord, you are free. One who keeps promises and adopts certain principles in life, is not powerless. On the contrary, such a person is termed a man of honor, upholder of principles and reliable. Therefore, Allah doesn?t lose any power by binding himself in His own Laws. In fact, such a Allah is worthy of being Allah. He is a Allah who can be trusted because His laws are reliable. Despite having the power to do so, He doesn?t break laws

This is all for now.

aabdul

Dear Hoppean,

I won?t make comment for your last posting except some material questions which I believe needed to be addressed (the one you reminded me I did not answer yet (point #3). Refer to my comments in the above post. However, just a few final comments to my point more clear to you.

According to me, whether these people believed themselves to be true or not, still their main contention in the verse is that, they are what they are not because of their choice but because God wanted them to be so. They put the responsibility on God which Quran strongly rebuts. You can find such a similar contention in 3647;

(Yousuf Ali translation); "And when they are told, "Spend ye of (the bounties) with which Allah has provided you," the Unbelievers say to those who believe "Shall we then feed those whom, if Allah had so willed, He would have fed, (Himself)?- Ye are in nothing but manifest error."

Here also the contention is clear. It is the will of God these people are poor. Allah makes individuals (as well as peoples) rich or poor at His own sweet will. It is their fate they are poor. This is the method used by "religious people" even today to lull the poor to sleep (so that they remain oblivious of all the exploitation committed against them by the rich). The entire concept is corrupt and anti-Quranic. This is the message of the verse.

Finally, if you believe the verse I quoted is not related to the issue under discussion you may ignore that verse and concentrate of the topic. The topic of discussion is not that particular verse.

Regards

aabdul

Interesting point. Are you saying that humans are totally self reliant? Prayers for loved ones who are ill, injured or missing in catastrophes are futile?

Dear StopS, this is a vast topic and needed to be discussed in detail. I kindly request you to read this chapter on PRAYER from Book of Destiny by Allama Parwez;

http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/kt_17.htm

And just to make you curious and to give you some inspirtation to go through this work, I would like to quote some comments from one work from Allama Iqbal (not from Parwez);

"Prayer, then, does not change the order of things, but it changes people and people change things. As Sura Ra?d 1312 states ?Verily God will not change the condition of men, till they change what is in themselves.? Prayer purifies, enlightens and at last transforms those who submit themselves to it.?Such prayer - prayer which changes both the man who prayes and the world he lives in - is not achieved without concentrated effort.? But once a human being has made this effort and attained spiritual perfection, then he/she is asked - even by God - what he/she desires as his/her destiny."

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p. 12.
Underhill, E, Worship, London, 1941. p. 18.
Herman, E, Creative Prayer, p. 38.

neb87

And just to make you curious and to give you some inspirtation to go through this work, I would like to quote some comments from one work from Allama Iqbal (not from Parwez);

I'm very curious to read more about what you've shared here. I thought your summary in post 51 was a very beautiful explanation of the relationship between God's Will and humans' free will, most especially the last paragraph. I'd come across work from Parwez before, but this is the first time I've heard the name Allama Iqbal or seen anything of his work.

aabdul

I'm very curious to read more about what you've shared here. I thought your summary in post 51 was a very beautiful explanation of the relationship between God's Will and humans' free will, most especially the last paragraph. I'd come across work from Parwez before, but this is the first time I've heard the name Allama Iqbal or seen anything of his work.

Thanks. For detailed understanding, please read Book Of Destiny by Parwez. http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/KT.htm

Best regards

Hoppean

Well, I will address here your accusation that I have never bothered to establish it exegetically and also your comment "If God does not "directly interfere" then it is either 1) Because He is incapable, or 2) It is because he is unwilling"

Yes this was one of my questions to you. However, you did not provide any exegesis of the texts you cited. All you did was prooftext them, as if your conclusions followed from what those verses are saying.

Firstly let me ask as an hypothetical question. We know salt has salty taste. It has salty taste because God wanted it so and made it so. If He had formulated salt to be with a sweet taste, it would have been sweet. Now my question, can Allah change the taste of salt from salty to sweet? The answer to that is Yes, He can but He won?t, because He has pledged NOT to make changes in laws He has established according to His will.

You said in bold "Yes He can but He won't" therefore he is unwilling according to you too!! This is the point!! It's really not important why, according to you, God is unwilling, all that matters is that you hold the same positon. So either you agree with the heathens cited in the various texts, or you are using the term "willing" in a different sense. In which you case you have just made my point for me!

According to me, whether these people believed themselves to be true or not, still their main contention in the verse is that, they are what they are not because of their choice but because God wanted them to be so. They put the responsibility on God which Quran strongly rebuts.

I will repeat the problem you have

If these heathens believed their own religious practices to be true and valid (hence their appeal to their forefathers).
Then, in their own minds, they are not doing anything wrong.
Therefore, they cannot be attempting to justify anything, as they are not doing anything sinful!!
This demonstrates that they are using the term "shaa/will" to indicate "Had God not been pleased with our religion, we would not be practicing it"

Without your gratuitous assumption that these heathens did not really believe in their religion it is impossible to deduce that they are "blaming" God or "justifying themselves" before God. They don't need to make God responsible for their practices, they are more than happy to take credit for them, since they believe them to be valid!

What's more, you admit that the distinction I have made with respect to the term "will/shaa" is correct; for you appeal to it when you say "Yes He can but He won't" thereby demonstrating that according to your own theology God wills not to "change the tase of salty to sweet". By which you mean that God has been pleased to institute "xyz natural laws" and not that he is incapable to "will" otherwise.

Here also the contention is clear. It is the will of God these people are poor.

As I showed above, this is also your contention. In other words, we all know what the text says, the question is what does it mean?

We both agree that God is capable of feeding those who are hungry, we disagree on why he has chosen no to; so this is not the issue.
These unbelievers err because they deny their obligation before God's moral law to feed the poor, etc.
Reading anything else into the text, apart from the sarcastic petulance of unbelievers, is incorrect. The text is not even addressing the issue of God's eternal decree; thus, the importance of exegesis.

aabdul

You said in bold "Yes He can but He won't" therefore he is unwilling according to you too!! This is the point!! It's really not important why, according to you, God is unwilling, all that matters is that you hold the same positon. So either you agree with the heathens cited in the various texts, or you are using the term "willing" in a different sense. In which you case you have just made my point for me!

Dear Hoppean,

Let us discuss the main point in our discussion. You said in post no. 31; ?In order to be consistent, please tell us whether God is capable or incapable of feeding those who are in need? If he is capable, and they are hungry, it is because he has willed it; that is to say, he has decreed it as such. If he is not capable, then he is not the God of scripture.?

So according to you if God is "capable" and if He does not feed the hungry it means He has decreed some people to hungry. What I am saying is this. God is fully CAPABLE to feed the hungry directly but it is not His plan. It is not His plan to directly interfere in the affairs of the world and feed the hungry. Allah has provided Man with rizq. But, the fair distribution of it is to be done by Man. Allah does not decree some people to go hungry. It is not his plan to directly interfere in the affairs of the world. Allah states in Quran;

Had We so willed, We could have sent down unto them a message from the skies, so that their necks would bow down before it in humility.(264)

Let me explain the point with an example. Birth of a human child is simultaneous to production of milk in the mother? breasts, but, if the mother abandons the child, it will die of hunger ? Allah would NOT feed the child even a single drop! According to your logic, if the God is Capable and still the child is not fed and hense it would mean God decreed that the child is not to be fed and die of hunger!! This is WRONG. Just look again at the system. Initially, mother?s milk is more watery than fatty to suit the infant?s digestive capabilities. Gradually, however, mother?s milk becomes more fatty until the time comes when the child has teeth and is able to digest other food. Mother?s breasts go dry. Now, parents have to work to get food for the child.

?Allah is the one who creates you all and then provides you sustenance -- ? (3040); Sura An?aam ?We sustain you and your off-springs -- ? (6152, 1731). ?There is none among the living on Earth whose sustenance is not upon Allah --- ? (116). However, this provision of sustenance by Allah is not done directly by Him. It is not because God is incapable. It is not His plan. His laws are permanent. God has limited His freedom by His own choice! (refer to my post 51)

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Hoppean.

You have failed to provide a definition of "omnibenevolence" or "mercy" etc, which would result in any "problem of evil".
The attribute of mercy has relevance only to an object; it presupposes creation and has no relevance to God ad intra. Thus, whatever your definition of "mercy etc" may be, it cannot result in God contradicting himself ontologically.
Categories such as mercy or justice have no relevance to God, qua creator. Therefore your objection falls away, as God, qua creator, "...does whatever he wills with the armies of heaven and earth, and none can stay his hand and all the inhabitants of the earth are esteemed as nothing." It would be like going up to an artist and saying your work is "unmerciful" or "unjust", such categories are irrelevant.

Those dispositions are NOT irrelevant from a Qur'aanic standpoint, since one of Allah's principle attributes is "alraheem" (e.g. the/most merciful). That's what the feature of 'omnibenevolence' is talking about. It literally describes someone who is all (or perfectly) good in every respect. You're correct in asserting that this characteristic can't be applied to God in the sense of being 'above' his creation. However, he referred to himself as being merciful ("rahiym&quot, just ("hasiyb&quot, forgiving ("gaffa'ar&quot, all-perfect ("q'uddus&quot, provider ("razza'aq&quot, gentle/kind ("latiyf&quot, loving ("waduud&quot, patron ("waali&quot, etc. That, if nothing else, places legitimate restrictions on him. Theoretically, if Allah was all of those things, then 'evil' wouldn't exist in the world - especially since, as you noted, he is knowledgeable of evil and he has the power to stop it.

If God knows that evil exist and he has the power to stop it, yet he chooses not to do so, then how can be described as merciful, just, kind, perfect, loving, etc.? You don't think that serves as a contradiction?

Peace,

Ahmad